151–160 of 339 posts
> Even the best windows and doors on the market perform much worse than even an average wall New windows here in Norway are often triple or quadruple glazed, and they have a pretty good R-value; so they are not that much worse than average walls at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in Europe, besides some old mountains huts. It's always a very strange feeling when I see how in the american home-reconstruction TV shows they're tearing the walls and it's all wood. Same case when I see the effects of hurricanes... it all feels very fragile comparing to what we have here.
But I do live in Europe... On the flatlands... Stone houses are in clear minority here. According to our national agency 90% of all single family homes built in 2020 was with a wooden frame/core and about 5% masonry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.
Our Architect in Ireland did this for us. He found the builders and also hired a QS and other people to manage cost. It was not at all cheap but well worth it as we were in no position to supervise ourselves. Even for a modest build, it was well worth the cost. I can't understand how people can spend $$$ on building a new house but try to go cheap on the Architect... All you get is a McMansion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks cool, wish they were in the US. Here we have "kit homes," like this First Day Cottage that I really like: https://www.reddit.com/r/woodworking/comments/sibihx/first_d... The company that makes the plans is http://www.firstdaycottage.com/
Huf Haus is just an example, there are several alternatives in the EU. I'm not familiar with the American market, but I'm willing to bet there are some similar options.
If I recall correctly, Huf Haus is around since forever, before WW1, and they continuously evolved, their solutions are more than well tested, as "perfect" as they can be.
The great advantage of the "fully integrated pre-fab" (such as Huf House and similar) is that IF/WHEN the project is done, the result will be exactly what has been designed, the great disadvantage is that once the project has been approved, NO changes are possible (and again from experience it is a rare case that the customer/owner is capable of fully understand the project in all its details).
Back to the OP question the issue (generally speaking and in my experience) is about coordination of the various figures involved, typically here (EU, Italy) you will have several people:
1) land surveyor
2) architect (here the architect is more about design than building)
3) engineer (structural)
4) engineer (hydraulics)
5) engineer (electric)
6) general contractor or builder
7) various sub-contractors (electrician, plumber, etc.)
The common issue is that each of them (usually) have a somewhat "narrow" view, limited to their particular field, and often (please read as "always") they don't communicate properly among them and with the customer/owner.
The exception (as well usually) is, or should be, the general contractor, but an experienced enough one is unlikely to be available for a single house building or will dedicate to it too little time.
Mind you each of the figures I mentioned are in most cases very good at what they do, but, in the absence of someone who coordinates the project and execution, it is common that the result is not as good as it could be.
There are (were) people (shameless plug I am or was one of them) that while not specialists in anything have the experience and capability to coordinate these people and - also important - "translate" and "interpret" the desires of the customer/owner, the "project manager" and/or "site manager" that could be either paid by the general contractor or by the customer/owner.
Sometimes (not often) the architect (or the builder) has these capabilities, or is part of a largish firm that can provide such a resource for the project.
Since this has a cost, and building is generally a cost competitive field, this added cost is one of those that in recent years has been (generally speaking) either cut or reduced to the minimum (like giving - say - five or six building sites to the same person, which won't have the needed time to follow in detail each of them).
So, in a nutshell (and as always) it all depends on the people, you might be able to find a builder (usually small firms, almost familiar ones) that can do this or you might be able to find an architect studio (as well a smallish, but not too small one) that can provide you with this service, or maybe you can find and hire yourself such a manager/coordinator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I do live in Europe... On the flatlands... Stone houses are in clear minority here. According to our national agency 90% of all single family homes built in 2020 was with a wooden frame/core and about 5% masonry.
Interesting! Not sure what do you mean by "flatlands". Which country/region?
Edit: Stucco plaster on wooden core is somewhat common here, which maybe makes it look like more houses are masonry core than actually is?
I'm looking at building a home as a first time home owner in the next few years. One thing I'm wondering is how many headaches can I avoid if I just choose an expensive builder and not try to haggle or save a buck at every turn? I just want a 2-bedroom, 1,000 sq ft bungalow and am willing to pay 60-70% more than the average $/sqft in my city if they do a good job. I'd rather have a nice small place rather than a huge…
I was effectively the PM for our renovation, and it turns out I suck at enough of this to never want to do it again, and this was on a pretty small place. If you've got additional cash to spend, I'd invest in having a good plan (architect) and management (ideally not you/partner or the architect).
It's like a big software project, right? You can have the best coders in the world, but if they're poorly managed and just making it up as they go along, then you're not going to get it done as fast and well as otherwise.
> Even the best windows and doors on the market perform much worse than even an average wall New windows here in Norway are often triple or quadruple glazed, and they have a pretty good R-value; so they are not that much worse than average walls at least.
We just refurbished our house here in Norway. New windows and 10 cm extra insulation. I am shocked how well the windows perform! Ice on the outside, but nice and warm on the inside. Amazing!
Supposedly, windows with an outer self cleaning layer get less condensation, but they're quite expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
does Norway worry about overheating indoors though?
Not sure, but consider that summer months can have little to no nighttime owing to the northerly latitude.
My experience is it's either too cold to open the windows, or you will want the windows open - in my part of Denmark.
I like this, but ROI should never be part of the calculation for home building, it's why we have so much homelessness in the first place.
I don't think that homelessness has much to do with construction costs: homeless people are usually not those who have $70k lying around which is not sufficient even as an initial downpayment for a home. The lack of housing is real, but it's more about regulations which forbid to build "cramped", "ugly" houses or "slums", or anything at all near elite houses which may not go down in "value".